Bellinger v. Bank of Glen Burnie (In re Empire Towers Corp.)

519 B.R. 624
United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland·Decided October 15, 2014·No. Bankruptcy No. 10-34611-JS; Adversary No. 12-00713-JS·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

JAMES F. SCHNEIDER, Bankruptcy Judge.

This matter comes before the Court upon the defendant Bank of Glen Burnie’s motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by the Chapter 7 Trustee to recover fraudulent conveyances. For the reasons set forth, the motion to dismiss will be granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Wilfred T. Azar, III (“Azar”), is the owner and principal of Empire Towers Corporation (“the debtor,” or “Towers”), Empire Holdings Corporation (“Holdings”), Empire Corporation (“Corp”), and Empire Management Services, LLC [625] (“Management”). Amended Complaint, ¶ 4.

2. As of the October 27, 2010, Towers owned real property at 7300 and 7310 Governor Ritchie Highway, Glen Burnie, Maryland 21061 (“Towers Property”), in which Towers leased office and retail space to various tenants for rent payable to Towers in monthly installments. Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 17, 21, 23.

3. Azar directed the tenants to make their rental payments to Corp., a separate legal entity, which deposited the rents into its own account. Amended Complaint, ¶ 23.

4. Corp. retained some of the rent proceeds for its own use and transferred some to third parties, including the Bank of Glen Burnie (“Bank”). Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 26-27.

5. Corp. owns property at 500 and 502 Crain Highway, Glen Burnie, Maryland 21061 (“Corp. Property”), and derives rent from its long-term tenant, Enterprise Leasing Co. of Baltimore. Defendant’s Exhibit Nos. 1-4.

6. The Bank made a loan to Corp. secured by both a deed of trust on Corp. Property as well as two assignments of rents generated by Corp. Property. Defendant’s Exhibit Nos. 5-7.

7. On October 27, 2010, Towers filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition in this Court. Amended Complaint, ¶ 7.

8. On April 27, 2011, upon the motion of the United States Trustee [P. 71], Joseph J. Bellinger (“plaintiff,” or “Trustee”) was appointed Chapter 11 Trustee [P. 78], and upon a motion to convert filed by the United States Trustee [P. 79], this Court converted the case to a proceeding under Chapter 7 by order dated May 16, 2011 [P. 83]. Amended Complaint, ¶ 8. The appointment of the Trustee and the conversion of the case to Chapter 7 were based upon allegations by the United States Trustee that a deficiency existed in “the debtor-in-possession bank accounts of net rental income from the debtors’ operations,” that “the debtors have never filed with the Court ANY reports of operations since filing the cases,” and that “[u]pon information and belief, substantial rental income has been diverted from these debtors-in-possession or, at least is unaccounted for.” U.S. Trustee’s Motion for the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee, or in the Alternative, to Convert Case to Chapter 7 [P. 71], filed April 7, 2011 [emphasis in the original motion].

9. Holdings also filed bankruptcy on October 27, 2010, but Corp. did not. Amended Complaint, ¶ 12. 4.1

10. On October 25, 2012, the Trustee filed the instant adversary proceeding to recover fraudulent conveyances from the Bank and Corp.

11. On March 4, 2013, the Bank filed the instant motion to dismiss the amended complaint on the basis that the Trustee’s claims against the Bank are barred by Section 550(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, and that the complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), (c), and (d).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This bankruptcy court has subject matter jurisdiction over the instant adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [626] §§ 157 and 1334. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409. This complaint is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

MOTIONS TO DISMISS

2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) requires the dismissal of a complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Pursuant to the rule, this Court must accept as true all well-pleaded allegations contained in the complaint, construing them in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. Ibarra v. United States, 120 F.3d 472, 474 (4th Cir.1997).

3. A complaint must be dismissed if it does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 949 (2007).

4. A claim has “facial plausibility” when the well pleaded facts allow the court to draw a “reasonable inference” that the elements of the claim have been satisfied and the “defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, 884 (2009).

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES

5. The amended complaint alleged the following four causes of action against the Bank: Count II for fraudulent conveyance, citing Section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code; fraudulent conveyance under Section 548(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code (Count IV);2 fraudulent conveyance under Maryland’s Fraudulent Conveyance Act, Md. Comm. Law Code §§ 15-201, et seq. (made applicable by Section 544 of the Bankruptcy Code3 (Count VI); and for [627] turnover to avoid transfer under Section 5504 of the Bankruptcy Code (Count VIII). Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 36-37, 43-46, 54-59, 63-65.

RATIONALE FOR GRANTING THE BANK’S MOTION TO DISMISS

(a) BANK NOT CULPABLE

6. In choosing to assert these causes of action against the Bank, the Trustee has sued the least culpable party to the alleged fraudulent transactions. The Trustee has made no allegation that the Bank had knowledge that Azar diverted funds from one corporation under his control to another one, namely Towers to Corp. The Bank accepted funds that were legitimately owed to it by Corp., and was not required to investigate whether the rent payments were coming from a different source, namely Towers. Bonded Fin. Serv., Inc. v. European Am. Bank, 838 F.2d 890, 892-93 (7th Cir.1988).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bellinger v. Bank of Glen Burnie (In re Empire Towers Corp.), 519 B.R. 624 (Md. 2014).

519 B.R. 624 (Bellinger v. Bank of Glen Burnie (In re Empire Towers Corp.)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)